♪ ♪ >> this event was part of freedom fest, a libertarian conference held annually in las

vegas. here ye, freedom fest court is in session for this important trial of our beliefs. sog jeffrey verdon is residing over this hearing. please all rise for the judge. [laughter] [applause] please be seated. ladies and gentlemen, members of the jury, we are gathered here in the great sovereign state of nevada to decide the fate of public unions in america. in this hearing, we hope to discussion if the benefits, the public, and the taxpayers to have our civil servants at the federal, state, and municipal level join the union. do unions serve the public interest, or are they nuance that we cannot afford and should be abolished? before this court, the

prosecution will attempt to show the public sector unions at our schools, fire, police departments, and other offices that have become unelected special interest group that are are overpaid and threatened strikes, slow downs, and even violence and through political lobbying and raising the burden of taxes and excessive spending under american public during times of economic stress and high unemployment. we have policy director and chief international economist of the afl-cio, the premier organization representing the united states. ms. lee, would you please stand. you have been accused of taking advantage of the public

treasury, being paid too much taking advantage of pension funds, threatening to disrupt the welfare of the country, and through lobbying, raising the burden of taxes and public debt during a time when the american people are suffering from unemployment, heavy taxes, and stress. how do you and your supporters plead? >> not guilty, your honor. >> we will begin the proceeding with a five minute opening statement first with the prosecutorring attorney steve moore. mr. moore is 5 distinguished member of the "wall street journal" editorial board and author of many books including "how president obama is bankrupting the u.s. economy" and several co-authored with arthur, the end of prosperity, return to prosperity and how america can reign in superpower status. he is a strong advocate of the flat tax, social security privatization and free trade and considered one of the premier supply side economists in the

united states. now, after opening statements, each attorney will call two witnesses who will be subject to cross examination. each side will make closing statements and afterwards the jury will rule on the case. if the defendants are found guilty, i'll impose the judgments. you'll listen carefully to the opening statements and the witnesses and at the end of the hearing you'll be required to determine whether there is sufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt and that ms. lee and her followers are responsible for malfeasance. is that understood, jury? mr. moo, you may -- mr. moore, you may begin your opening statements. >> thank you, your honor. ladies and gentlemen of the audience, and ladies and gentlemen of the jury, thank you very much for being here. when i read the title of this trial, "public unions, are they

good or bad for america," i thought this must be a trick question. i think there's no question you will find that the evidence shows that public employee unions are very bad for the u.s. economy, and i think that we will show you in the next 45 # minutes to an hour that the unions are guilty. >> i'm going to need a bench to rule from, so step over here. >> okay. >> thank you. can you hear me? >> no. >> can you hear me now? >> yeah. >> guilty of three charges, number one, public employee unions have become a scourge on the u.s. economy and making us poorer as a result. number two, public employee unions are responsible for the bankrupting of virtually every state and local government in america -- [applause]

number three -- >> silence in the court, please. >> number three, public employee unions are guilty of causing one of the greatest income inequality injustices in american history. the injustice and inequality is the inequality of pay between what public employees receive and private sectors what are comparably skilled. the average worker in america receives only half of what a public sector employee unions get. we hear from liberals all the time there's injustice and unfairness in america, and i would make the case to you, ladies and gentlemen, and i think we'll show you the evidence that the greatest injustice and greatest unfairness is this disperty in incomes between what the public sectors receive and the private sector unions, and that's something that's causing higher taxes on all of us. now, i had an article in the "wall street journal" a month ago called "makers versus

takers," and it shows what is wrong in america with the growth and size of unions in america. one statistic to document how public sector employee unions are taking over america. if you go back to 1965, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you'll find in america there were twice as many manufacturing workers in america as there were public sector union employees in the united states. by 1995, there were exactly the same number of public employee unions members as there were manufacturers. today in america, and this is sad of what has happened to our economy, there's twice as many government workers today as there are manufacturers, twice as many takers in the american economy as makers, and ladies and gentlemen, that is a trend that is simply unsustainable in america today. [applause]

we have not talked about the real evil empire of the u.s. economy. you know what i'm talking about the the teacher unions are bankrupting our schools, and we have got to do something about -- [applause] about freeing the kids from the public teachers unions in america. one example of the injustice that they impose on our economy. in states like ohio, just one example, they have a policy called retire and rehire, a worker, a teacher at the age of 53-55 can earn a salary of $100,000, and retire with a $100,000 a year pension, and then, ladies and gentlemen, get rehired for that same job at the old salary taking home $200,000. nobody in the private sector gets that deal, and that's the kind of thing that is taking away money from the classroom so we have better schools 234 america, and so i think in sum,

ladies and gentlemen, you will find by the end of this hour that the public sector employees are guilty as charged and the american economy and every state government and local golfs would be much more fiscally healthy if we did not have public unions. >> please, no awe place. there's order in the courtroom. i expect to have order in my courtroom. now, thank you, counselor. thea lee, we'll now here from her, deputy chief of staff policy director, chief international economist at the afl-cio earning 5 bachelors from smith college another another from university of michigan. he's author of field guide to the global economy, an expert on the north american free trade

agreement, international trade, wage inequality, and the steel and textile industries. she's appeared on numerous television and radio shows and also on the board of directors of workers rights yiewned for the fair economy and the national bureau of economic research. ms. lee, will you give your opening statement please. >> thank you, your honor. good evening, ladies and gentlemen of the jury and assembled audience. i submit to you that the charges against my client, the public unions of america and the hard working men and women who belong to them, are utterly facially and should be -- faceless and should be thrown out of the court. they are based on unrepresented evidence and a false premise. moreover, i will demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that my client has been unfairly scapegoated, and is being blamed for crimes, in fact, committed by another party entirely.

the prosecution is well aware of this fact, and i submit to you that the prosecution has an unseamly, and i might even say i want mat relationship with the true culprit. the case is a smoke screen to divert attention from the true perpetrator of the crimes issued today. the collapse of the u.s. economy, the destruction of the american middle class, and the state budget short fall. my client could not be present in the courtroom this evening, and if they were here, i have no doubt that you would find them to be an extremely sympathetic group. they are your neighbors, family, your friends. they teach your children, they care for your elderly parents, keep your local library open and pick up your garbage. they were the ones who walked back into the burning buildings on 9/11. they are the ones who throw their bodies in front of violent criminals. many of them literally risk their lives every single day to

keep you and your family safe. the question in front of us tonight is do these hard working americans deserve to exercise their basic human freedom to form a union if they so choose and to bargain collectively with their employer for decent wages and bin fit -- benefits for a dignified retirement. i rest on three key points. first, it's a freedom for workers to join to the at their workplace with a voice on the job. the government should not deny workers this freedom, and every decent democratic government recognizes the right of workers to form unions, and it is totalitarian and dictatorship that they are afraid of having our workers have a voice at the job. second point tsh it is good for the u.s. economy and essential to the survival of the middle class that we have decent wages and benefits. there's overwhelming empirical

evidence that public sector workers are not, in fact, overcompensated compared to the cowcialt parts in the private sector. once you take into account the different levels of education, skill, and years of experience. in fact, many, many studies show that public sector workers are underpaid relative to private sector workers by at least 4%. third, public sector workers and their unions are not to blame for the fiscal troubles of state and local government nor the underfunding of pences. there's no correlation with the states have collective bargaining rights and strong unions and states of fiscal troubles. in fact, states that allow public sector collectsive bargaining recently had 14% deficits relative to their budget compared to those states where public sector collective bargaining was not allowed there was a 16.5 budget deficit on average. the states with the biggest

problems of the pensions and biggest problem of the deficit don't allow collective bargaining like texas, north carolina, and nevada. what accounts for the ballooning state deficits? any -- >> ms. lee, that's a speech. make an opening statement. >> yes, sir, your honor, of course, your honor. the deep recession began in 2008, the stock market collapsed and the housing market were to blame for the troubles that state budgetses are having, not the worker and their unions. rising health care costs for private workers, again, not the fault of the unions, in fact, unions deliver significant benefits, not just to their members, but to their communities and economy overall. teachers bargain for smaller class size so the kids can learn, nurses bargain for reasonable patient loads so their patients get the care they deserve. firefighters and police need safe conditions to provide the protections for their

communities. richard florida of the martin prosperity institute, the university of sponsored business school found union density is, in fact, looking state by state, the states with a higher union density have highing, more education, and more creative work, not the opposite. intergnarlly, that holds up as well. countries with the highest unionization have higher productivity, lower unemployment. public sector workers have been dragged through the mud to distract you, the american people, from the truly guilty party in the economic problems we are facing today. wall street, big business, multinational corporations, gambles with our future, turned the economy into a giant casino, sent jobs offshore, and now they. to blame hard working nurses, teachers, firefighters, and police officers for the damage they brought. this is what america is all

about. you work hard all your life. you play by the rules. you take care of your neighbors and your community. you take pride in your work. you deserve a decent school for your kids, a safe neighborhood, and a dignified retirement. my client is not guilty of all charges. instead of putting these hard working people on trial, we should be thanking them for the hard work they do for and for the modest pay. we should redistrict our justified anger at the collapse of the u.s. economy towards the truely guilty party, wall street and big business. that, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, is who should be going to jail. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, ms. lee. mr. moore, please call your first witness. >> thank you, your honor. i'd like to call to the witness substantiate mr. john mackey. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, please

no applause. this is a courtroom. [laughter] >> will you swear on this whole foods apple -- [laughter] to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you god? >> how do i know that's really a whole the foods apple? >> because we went there and told me he bought it. >> we'll stipulate it's a whole foods apple. >> i do. [laughter] >> mr. mackey, thank you for being here. let me start with 24 question. you're the ceo and president of whole foods. how many employees do you have around the country? >> i think about 61,000. >> 61,000. of the 61,000, would you say you're an employer that provide your employees with a fair wage and benefit, and can you

describe a little bit the wages and benefits you provide for the workers? >> the average wage is $16.50 an hour. the benefits are extensive, fully provided health care, food discounts, retirement benefits, it's a very generous -- names one of the best 100 companies to work for by "fortune" magazine for 14 years. >> how many are your employees are part of a union? >> none that i'm aware of. [laughter] >> you're not a unionized shop. why, sir? why don't you have a union at whole foods? >> because the team members have not felt that they needed union representation. >> so you believe that the prefertion of the company -- performance of the company would suffer? what do you think the union would do for the workers? do you think they would benefit from that or they would be harmed 1234 >> i do not think they would be benefited by it,

no. >> now, let me ask you this question. if a union were forced upon you, if whole foods had to have unionized workers, what do you think that would do to your competitiveness in your class structure as a company in a very competitive industry? >> i think it would be harmful competitively. i mean, every industry i'm aware of that's heavilily unionized declines in competitiveness. we feast upon our unionized competitors as a general rule. they do not have as good as service or quality. they don't seem to work as hard. it's competitive disadvantage generally to be unionized. >> have your workers ever attempted to unionize? >> yes, sir, our madison, wisconsin store unionized for one year and then desert mid the union a year later. >> what happened in that incidence, sir? the workers promoted for union representation, and then they changed their minds. >> so the reason you're not

unionized is not because you don't want a union, but you're worker -- your workers chose not so have a union; is that correct? >> it's illegal in the united states to prevent unionization. if nay want a union, they are free to elect one, but so far they have not chosen to do so. >> let me ask you one more question, sir. given that the studies are showing that public sector employee unions are paid substantially higher than what a comparable private sector worker receives, and we'll provide evidence of that in a few minutes, but given that, that you have to premium in wages and benefits that are paid to public employees, do you think that's fair that one of your workers who's paid $16-$20 an hour should have to pay higher taxes to pay for benefits and salaries that are much more generous for comparably skilled workers in the public sector? >> i don't think, in my opinion,

i don't think in the private sector where you have competition, unions can serve a useful purpose, sometime, but in the public sector where government's a monopoly, the public service unions, i think don't have that competition to keep them in check, and as a result, i think they've done great damage. i don't think public service unions should be legal. >> thank you, sir. >> all right, ms. lee, your witness. >> my partner -- [inaudible] >> that'll be fine. please proceed. >> i'm karl shoemaker, professor of history and law at the university of wisconsin in madison. [laughter] mr. moore brought out an example of a very impressive job you've

done in building and leading whole foods. it's commendable, and i want to commend you on that, but what i'd like to do is ask you hypothetical situations and get your expert opinion at having worked all the years that you have with whole foods and how you would assess these situations. imagine, i know you would never do this, but imagine for a moment that you, today issued a directive to your company and said from this day forward, no employee at whole foods will ever get a raise higher than the cost of living allowance in a given yearment we'll tag it to the consumer price index, and no one gets a raise above that. can you tell me in your expert opinion what that does to your competitiveness? >> that would be very harmful to our competitiveness. >> i imagine. i imagine that it would. i'd like to imagine another hypothetical situation, again, something you'd never engage in, but let's imagine you entered into a contract with a group of employees, involving a range of things, compensation, salary,

benefits, health care, all the things you provide. imagine at the end of the year due to a contraction in the economy, unforeseen capital expenditures, you decided you were not going to make that agreed upon contribution to a pension. you just decided nod to do it. you explain the circumstances to your employers under which you 4 to make the decision, and then you don't make the contribution. what do you think the results would be for your company? >> it would be bad for morale. it would be illegal, we would be sued and there would be negative consequences. >> indeed. there could be legal obligations, that's right. would it surprise you if i said all the scenarios i described while illegal in the private sector whether unionized or not are actually per permissible under law for public employees? >> nothing you could tell me regarding what goes on at the government would surprise me.

[laughter] [applause] >> very well put. very well put. [laughter] and given precisely that uncertainty you just described, the unpredict the of government and the dangers it poses in certain circumstances, why take away from public employees the right to unionize to protect themselves against those engrandsonsments? >> the reason why i take it away is because there's essentially no competition. a company is in a sense -- the unions compete for the hearts and minds of the workers in the private sector, and if you don't do a good job of taking care of your employees, you run the risk of unionization. on the other hand, the check on the unions is competition. if the unions ask for too much, then you'll be at a competitive disadvantage. the public sector doesn't have

the disadvantage because they go back to the taxpayer for more money, and that's exactly what we seen happen. [applause] >> no further questions, your honor. [laughter] >> you may step down, mr. mackey. [laughter] [applause] >> all right. let's call the next witness. for my next witness i'll call mr. steven greenhut. [applause] >> please, ladies and gentlemen, please. >> mr. greenhut. do you swear on this copy of the "wall street journal" to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you god? >> not on the international editorials, but on everything else, yes. [laughter]

>> this is going to be a long night. i can see it now. [laughter] >> mr. greenhut, state your name and occupation. >> steven greenhut -- >> oh, sorry, sorry. the bailiff made a mistake here. >> oh, rusty's on vacation. >> i'm editor of calwatchdog and watched the train wrerk in california. i wrote an article on subtle employee unions. [laughter] >> let's talk about the fiscal crisis in california. you're an expert on that subject. to what degree would you say that public employee unions are responsible for the $20 billion hole in the sacramento budget? >> the unions say there's only a small percentage of the state budget's that's attributeable to the debt, but they hid the impact on the state budget. it's a pretty large effect, but

at the local level, it's e enormous. cities spend 80% of the their budget and police and fire service that goes to salary and benefits, and the state has a half trillion unfunneledded pension liability, real debt. >> half a trillion? >> half a trillion which is big by california standards. [laughter] the union says it's not a real debt because of how it's funded. i suggest we don't pay it, but they don't like that idea. [laughter] >> how many cities in california in your estimation, and you're an expert on fiscal issues in california, how many cities do you think if the fiscal path continues and the kinds of wages and benefits that are provided to public employee unions continue, how many cities would you think in the next 10 #-20 years might declare bankruptcy because of these union contracts 1234 >> i don't know the number that are going to declare bankruptcy, but there's a business insider analysis of the 14 worse cities that are just

plundered. i love that term. by the public employee unions, and five are in california. san diego used the b word, and san fransisco used the b word. when you pay police captains $300,000 a year, and the average firefighter salary is $175,000 a year. we have life guards in orange county earning well over $100,000 a year -- >> mr. green youhut, have you taken evidence in law school? >> no. >> i have not heard objections, and you may want to raise a few. [laughter] >> i'm trying to be impartial here, but, you know -- >> [inaudible] >> it's unobjectionable. >> there may be evidence you want to object to. all right. proceed, proceed. >> sir, can i please get back

toy questioning? >> yes, you can. >> is it true, mr. green youhut, that there many retirees that receive pensions over $100,000 a year. >> yes, there's a $100,000 pension club, 1500 members growing up to 60% a year because the benefits -- >> these a six-figure pensions? >> cost of living adjusted, best health care in the world, and that does not count disability pensions. i have yet to meet a police chief not retiring on disability. >> sorry to interrupt, but is that common in the private sector for a private sector to receive a $100,000 a year pension? >> still waiting -- outside of the ceo level, i don't ever meet any. >> virtually only ceos or the very upper top management of a company would receive $100,000 pension whereas in the public sector, you -- it can be fairly

routine in california. >> oh, it's very routine. >> 1 it just california? what about other states? >> other states too, but california is the leading on trends of all good and bad. [laughter] >> are you particular familiar, sir, with a policy called retire and rehire? >> well, i've hearing-impaired of that, and we -- i've heard of that, and there's drop programs. there's various double dipping schemes. you know, if you have a dropped program or a rehire and retire or vice versa, it shows as a matter of fact that the retirements are too rich because the employee wants to keep working, the agency wants the employee to keep working, but the retirement is so rich. in california 3% of 50 retire with 90% of final years pay if you're public safety and that including billboard and milk inspectors. if they are older than 50, they are essentially working for free. >> now, sir, the defense has asserted this afternoon that public employee unions are not

overpaid, that the workers are not overpaid, and, in fact, i think the case was in fact they are paid less than comparably skilled private worker. i'd like to know -- you looked at the data throughout the country -- you tell us what your research found on the area? are public employee unions paid less than private sector workers? >> no, although -- public employees are paid more, and it used to be the old deal they got a little bit less pay, slightly better benefits, and extra days off and all of that. now they get paid more mostly. there's some categories where they don't. >> how much more? >> well, that's a hard number to part, but you had mentioned that, you know, in some cases it's double on the retirement, and some i see in the retirement benefits can be triple. the average -- >> objection, your honor, this is here say. i have not heard a fact yet. >> no foundation, your honor. >> rule the op --

objection. sustained. >> sustained? okay. you looked at the disperty and private sector pay and benefits, what would you say on average if you would, sir, what is the premium that is paid to a public sector worker today? best judgment. >> well, what i see, for instance, the unions talk about on retirement that the average government retiree gets about $27,000 a year, and they say that as evidence that these are not outrageous pensions. now, these averages include, you know, people who retire in the era, and they include people who are short timers. in the private sector, that number is about 9,000 so even 23 the $27,000 is still trip med on the pension, but if you look at people retiring in the last couple years, in california, the average is $66,000. >> mr. greenhut, you made the point. we have to move on.

any further questions? >> one last question. >> quick one, counsel. >> i know your the size nationally of the public sector employee unfunded liability in the pension and health care benefits, and could you provide for the jury what the best estimate is for that number about how much money is owed by states and cities to cover these enormous pension and health care costs? >> yeah, i've seen number from 1.5-3 trillion. 1.5-3 trillion. what does that mean? >> it's large. >> how high is the entire amount of state and local budgets today. it's not 3 trillion. >> that's two questions. >> that's right. it's incredible amount of money that must be repaid by law. >> wow. >> must be repaid. >> thank you. >> that causes enormous problems. >> thank you, mr. greenhut.

>> counselor, please be seated. i don't want to ask you again. ms. lee, your witness. >> thank you. >> mr. greenhut. who funds the pacific research institute. >> various free market doe mars. >> corporations? >> i'm sure there's some of those. >> you made a lot -- >> can i ask who funds the public employees? >> they are members. >> oh. wait, you're askings questions, but -- >> i get to ask the questions. >> i didn't know whether taxpayers funded it. [laughter] okay. >> you said that 15,000 public sector workers earn a pension of over $100,000. what percentage is that? >> i don't know the percentage, but it's a large and growing number. >> it's less that 2%. >> yeah, but you know the averages -- when you look at an average, i mean, what we got is a soaring number growing by 40%. >> less than 2%, and of those

workers how many were under clerkive bargaining agreement when they got the pensions, can you tell me that? >> i don't know the percentage that are under collective bargaining. >> i do. >> tell me. >> less than half of them. most of the folks are management or elected officials. >> but, you know, managers are in associations, but those are essentially -- >> excuse me. counselor, you can't answer the question you ask. [laughter] let of witness answer. >> it's the same of unions. >> management is not a union. >> counselor, please. >> it's an association. >> it's not a union. >> where they clerkively bargain. [laughter] >> they do not collectively bargain. they do not. >> collective bargaining by the other unions has an impact creating a wratch effect. >> you talked about unfunded liability. >> it's worth talking about.

you don't think it's a problem? >> is that generally the problem of unions, those decisions about how much money goes into pension funds and what the assumptions are? is that what unions do or management has prerogative over. >> you're trying to make a huge distinction between public sector management and -- >> answer the question, please. >> i don't understand the question. it was a little too con convoluted. >> there's management and unions. >> okay. make a distinction between management associations. where i worked at the orange county register, 98% of the people in the county management and rank and file were in an association or union, only 500 employees from the very top level and they enjoy all the pensions benefits that the rank and file are able to. >> the trial is not about government, but about public sector unions. >> right, but the unions elect

their bosses. >> let's move on. >> i want to move on too. >> ms. lee, save your closing statements for closing statements, thank you. [laughter] >> okay. what does weakening unions have to do with solving budget problems at the state level? >> well, in california i used 20 say that the unions own the legislature, but that's not true. they are the legislature. [laughter] the asemibly speaker 1 the commercial workers union organizer. the senate is a former sciu attorney. if i were you in the afl-cio, i would not defend those people. any good progressive -- >> please stick to the answer of the question. [laughter] >> if she astrays, so can i; right? >> i'm the judge here, you stick to the questions so we can move this along. >> okay. >> people have dinner reservations. [laughter] >> okay. >> do you believe in democracy? >> oh, come on, that's a

ridiculous question. >> yes or no, please, yes or no. >> that's like asking if i beat my wife. [laughter] yes, i believe in democracy. >> does a union member have a right to run for public office? >> sure they do. do they have a right to take money without asking the members. >> i'm asking the questions. >> final question. >> okay. so in a democracy people can run for office and they receive campaign contributions, receive support from various people, from corporations, from unions, from individuals and so on. is it your belief that an elected official has no free will and is incapable of remitting his or her constituents given the campaign contributions out there? >> well, you know, i don't know a lot of legislated officials, and i don't give them much credit for anything. [laughter] i do know they are deathly afraid of the public employee unions, republicans as well as democrats. republicans love the public safety unions and want to pose

next to the fire trucks and police officers. i don't know what the question was and i don't know what my answer was, but -- [laughter] >> okay. one last question for you, sir. if we want to do what you're suggesting -- >> what am i suggesting? i haven't suggested anything. >> let her ask the question. >> i'm sorry. >> then you answer. >> she's asking me to respond on something -- >> if you allow me to finish my sentence. >> you're height, my apologies. >> right, always a good practice. if we weaken public sector unions and take they way their right, slash pay and pensions and health care, do you think we will attract more or less qualified set of applicants in the future? >> you know what? i have never seen there were 22,000 applicants for a firefighter job. i'm not worried about getting applicants for $175,000 where you are paid overtime to wash

the fire truck. >> is that true or false for teachers and nurses as well? >> teachers and nurses do not get a generous pension, but it is many times for those -- >> thank you, ms. lee. >> okay. thank you, no further questions. >> mr. moore, do you have any other witnesses to call? >> your honor -- >> you may be dismissed. >> your honor, the prosecution rests its very strong case. [laughter] >> thank you. >> all right, ms. lee. please call your first witness. i'll call dr. karl shoemaker, professor of law at the university of wisconsin, madison. [laughter] >> mr. shoemaker. this is unusual, but i'll allow it. [laughter] >> do you swear on the copy of the national labor relations board manual to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but

the truth so help you god? >> i do. >> tell me about your education and your relevant work experience. >> i hold a bachelor of science degree from liberty university, hold a law degree from law school in alabama and a ph.d. from the university of california, briefly practiced law in the state of alabama, still a member of the bar there. i've been active politically in the republican party and in recent months i pay attention to events outside my door in madison, wisconsin. >> ms. lee, the court stipulates he's smart. [laughter] >> thank you, your honor. in your expert opinion, what's the primary reasons for opposition to public unions in the first half of the 20th century. >> three reasons. one was a concern granting rights to public workers allow them a legal avenue for striking and striking was a major issue

leading to violent confrontations in the early 20th century. the others were issues, one a doctrine of sovereign immunity, the notion that the state and federal government could not be held to legal obligations that they created, and the fear was that collective bargaining forced them to honor contracts in a situation where states did not want to be bound by law, and in some states, north carolina's example of this, there's a doctrine that holds the state employees extra duty of loyalty to the states, not to the communities they work for, but the state government itself. those are the factors that are the real reasons for oppositions to part with unions. >> have those concerns been alleviated after recognizing public unions and rights? >> the great bargain struck in exchange to form unions at the state level was giving up the right to strike. the state prohibits strikes

uniformly, and in most cases there's strict penalties, and since the 19 60s there's a decline in strikes and it's in more budget times, it's worked smoothly, in fact. the doctrines are relaxed as more democratic sensibilities took hold and states are understood to be accountable. >> public unions who granted the right to bargain over wages, what about pension? >> pension benefits are set president i legislature and not subject to bargaining at all. >> and when did states allow public sector workers to unionize and bargain collectively, how did that turn out? can you trace a trend of increases in strikes and trikes and so on? >> no, to the contrary. there's been a dmon demonstrateble decline in that. there's what's called the spoil system.

collective bargaining in unions stood in the way of the old way of appointing one's cronies and political supporters into all kind of public positions from high ranking positions down to teachers and public unionism actually was a very effective way of stopping this kind of cronyism and what we called political spoils. >> thank you. what about the role of mediation and arbitration with respect to public sector unions? how does that compare in states with those union rights compared to states that don't have rights for collective bargaining for public sectors? >> actually not much difference in terms of confrontation levels between states in which there's a right and states 234 which it's prohibited. >> do you find overall workers are overcompany stated? >> know, the studies show there's anywhere from a 4%-8% penalty, and that gap actually wides with education and qualifications.

>> the highest levels of education, jobs for example as a cancer researcher at the national institute of health or a legal scholar, there's even a bigger gap for public sector workers. >> economists, for example, is 20%. >> how do you explain that disperty the prosecution used versus those you cited? >> they use rhetoric rather than paying attention to the data. >> what is the difference between -- >> questions, ms. lee. >> the studies that find public sector workers are not overpaid, are they empirical studies and what do they take into account? >> comparing levels of education, age, qualifications of the job, levels of responsibility, the studies showing overcompensation compare fire chiefs to mcdonalds employee, and it's not a meaningful comparison. >> okay, no further questions. >> mr. moore, your acquaintance. >> thank you, your honor. let me get the facts straight about your background.

you are a professor of history and legal studies; is that correct? at the university of wisconsin madison? >> that's correct. >> does that make you about the most liberal person in america? [laughter] is there someone more liberal than a person on the campus in the liberal arts school and let me ask you about -- >> this is not a liberal arts college. >> let me ask youth about the outrage in wisconsin this winter. did you observe the goings on in that time? >> yes. >> let me ask you this question, according to news reports that are very credible, there were schools throughout the state of wisconsin especially in milwaukee that had to be shut down several days because the teachers were protesting. can i ask you this question? how is that putting children first? >> as far as i understand it some school districts in milwaukee and madisons there was

school closures for two and three days. >> these teachers were putting their union ahead of the kids? >> actually, they were taking great risks to themselves professionally since there have been some repercussions for those who did, but they were doing it because they really believe in the quality of education offered in wisconsin, and they are desperate to hold on it it. >> the kids were not harmed by the fact they didn't have school those days 1234 >> the kids were probably delighted. [laughter] >> let me ask you this question. you've been a big defender of collective bargaining; is that right? that's one of the major obviously issues of contention in the protests about whether there should be collective bargaining. let me ask you this question. if you've got a situation where you have a democratic major or a democratic city council essentially elected by -- with predominantly with public employee union money, and that mayor or city counsel member is

sitting at the goaforting table across the table of public sector employee union representatives, do you think -- can you honestly say that you think that that elected official is going to act on behalf of the teachers of the public employee unions or the taxpayers who pay the salaries. what is your honest been opinion of that. remember, sir, you are under oath. [laughter] >> i believe all human institutions private or public are susceptible, people try to arise and do their duty. >> in that kind of situation, who at the bargaining table a representing the interest of the taxpayer, not the union? >> what's being bargained for? >> when you have a democratically elected public official who is elected with public employee union member money, who, when that negotiation between the salaries and benefits of those union workers, who is representing the

taxpayer's interests? >> opposed to the representatives there -- >> my point is, sir, you can't have a negotiation is both sides are on the side of the union. >> if that were -- >> is that the point -- >> professor would you like the question read back? [laughter] >> i think he is so inartfully trying to ask. [laughter] >> professor, answer the question. >> i'll ask another question, because there's much i want to put you under the microscope on. last year with a budget crunch in the city of milwaukee that what had to happen was that the city had to fire because of union work rules, the city had to fire the teacher of the year and what private sector institution would ever, ever, every fire their best worker?

[laughter] >> you don't have to answer the question. i think his silence is deafening on that question. >> let me ask you one last thing. are you -- as everyone knows, especially the members of the jury, the members of the legislature in -- the number of them, i think 10-11 members of the state senate in wisconsin walked out and fled to illinois -- >> are you proud of the actions? >> the number is 14. >> i knew you knew the number. was that a justifiable action to flee the state and not act as a representative of the state? >> i look forward to when the voters in their districts affirm what they did or complain, but i suspect given what i know of the landscape there they are getting support from their constituents. >> that's what it's come to that the democratic party is so

beholding now -- >> save that for closing arguments. >> it's a question. true or false, the democrats are now with the public unions they walk out on their jobs. >> false. >> thank you. i rest my case. >> professor, you may be excused. >> redirect? >> okay. do you have any more witnesses, counselor. i call dr. spencer pack to the stand. >> dr. pack, do you swear on this copy of the "new york times" -- [laughter] to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> i don't think i can swear on the "new york times". i'm sorry, i cannot do that. >> just on your own good will. >> i will, thank you. >> the court stipulates he'll tell the truth.

>> dr. pack, state your name and occupation. >> i'm spencer pack, professor of economics at connecticut college in new london, connecticut. >> what are your educational credentials and work experience? >> i have a ba in social theory, a masters is political theory from university of toronto, ph.d. in economics, mathematical economics, and political economy from the university of new hampshire. >> so in your view as an economist, can you tell me, what's the impact on economic growth if tomorrow we unilaterally eliminated all public sector unions, collective bargaining rights and obligated pension obligations for public sector workers and retirees, what's the impact on the u.s. economy? >> it would demoralize people at this dorches i would think in denying the freedom for workers, public workers, to join unions.

it would be demoralizing. the second place to be firing people in times of massive unemployment would be a terrific mistake. in the third place, in the global economy that we have now where we need more teachers and more education to be firing teachers and wrecking the educational system more would be a terrible mistake. >> would that close state and local budget gaps if we were to fire a lot of public sector workers and reduce pensions? >> no, the problem with the deficit is the recession that's been going on for years. we have 9.2% official unemployment rate. many more people are under employed or discouraged. when you have this kind of unemployment, government revenues will go down to the extent that there's a safety net to help common people on main

street, expenditures will go up. that's the cause of the deficit. we will have these deficits as long as we have 9.1% or more unemployment. that's not going away under these policies. >> last question, ms. lee. >> dr. pack, can u.s. compete internationally in the 21st century in the global economy without investing in infrastructure, education, and the skills of our work force? >> obviously not, and even with that, it's hard to see how we're going to be able to compete internationally when there's low wage economies coming on to the market and we have a bipartisan consensus to have outsourcing, free trade, wage arbitrage which means when the wages are higher in one country like the united states and lower in other countries like india and china, the tendency for the wages in the united states is to go down,

and that's where we're looking at. >> thank you. >> thank you, dr. pack. no further questions at this time. >> mr. moore? >> sir, is it your contention -- by the way, you're a professor at what school? >> connecticut college in london connecticut. >> you may be more liberal than this gentleman here? [laughter] >> i think i'm the most liberal person in this room. [laughter] >> okay, i'm glad we have -- >> and i want to say how i was invited here on the one hand was a mystery to me, and on the other hand, i'd like to thank you. >> we are pleased you are here. >> line of questioning is not pertinent. >> is it your contention that to be a good teacher, you have to be a member of the public employee union? >> it's any contention that in america, a free country, people, if they want to form unions, they should have the freedom to do it. >> oh, okay.

>> this is not 1975. this is not cant santiago. >> let me ask you this question. i don't think you would contend we have many teachers in america that teach in private schools; correct, and the vast majority of the teachers are not members of unions, would you agree with that? yes or no, that teachers in the private schools are generally -- like catholic schools are not members of unions. >> oh, i misunderstood. yes, we have a system of public schools and private schools in america, and we've had that system for a long time. >> it's your contention if i understand what you just said earlier was that these high salaries for these teachers and high benefits benefit the school system and the kids, and my

question to you is why 1 it in the private sector and catholic schools, teachers are paid lower, and yet the test results, the graduation results are higher in the private schools with nonunionized teachers than the public school. >> i don't think any teachers are highly paid. i don't think any teachers are highly paid. >> professors -- >> the people who are highly paid are on wall street. >> answer the question. >> not plain street, wall street. >> another question. you brought up a very important principle. i think you said that freedom; right, that you said that teachers and firefighters and policemen and women should have the right to form a union if they want; is that fair of what you said? >> in the land of america, in the land -- >> yes or no, professor. >> equality, fraternity, of course. >> you think they should have the right to choose a union if they want it?

>> my point is if they want to be in a union, they have the freedom to be. >> does that mean then you'd support what republican governors around the country want to do which is create right to work laws so every single worker in america has the right to join a union or not join a union? isn't that a basic civil right of every american worker? [applause] >> the question here -- >> save your speeches for closing. please ask the question. >> the question here 1 should people who join unions go to expwrail. that's the question. >> no, it's not. that's not the question. >> professor -- >> professor -- >> if i want to work for the police department in may local government or be a teacher in the public schools, should i be forced to join a union and pay the dues 1234 >> object, object. >> overruled. >> final question. >> should i be -- >> you are not required.

>> the right of joining the union or not? >> i think workers in america should have the fundamental right to join a union if they want to. >> or not to? >> whether or not they want to or not as far as a free right to work state, each state should be able to decide that on its own. i anticipate new hampshire decides one way, another state decide another way. each state should have the right to choose. ..

let's just review some of the evidence that we have heard. we have heard the evidence that the public sector employee unions are paid a very large premium for being members of that union, that those premiums can be 30%, 50% and in some cases 100% higher than what a private sector receives and there a basic unfairness here. liberals often talk about the concept of fairness. has it fair that the janitor of the plumber further rougher and america will live down the street from a public employee union has to pay taxes for less money and has to pay taxes to pay for these inflated salaries

benefits, health benefits and so one that worker does not get themselves. i would make a case to you that is unfair and hurting the economy. second of all, you heard evidence that the state and municipal governments unions have created a situation now through collective bargaining where states and municipalities are facing a $1.523 trillion unfunded liability and i would ask this question when you deliberate on this. where do you think the money is going to come from to pay for those exorbitant unfunded liabilities? i will tell you the answer. they will come from two sources. either one, we are going to have to radically cut our kinds of public services that we all care about. it means we will have to cut school funding. it means we will have to cut our police and parks and firefighters and we will have to close prisons and we will have to do that because of these exorbitant kinds of employee

benefits and retirement benefits that are unaffordable and they are a direct result of forced unionism in the public sector. we have also heard that we have seen evidence that teachers walked out on their students to protect their government employee benefits. is that putting children first? i would make the case to you that it is not. we cannot go forward in america with public employee unions and crafting every state and city in america. you served -- heard the evidence ladies and gentlemen about what is happening california. i would make the case to you that the fiscal problems in california are the canary in the coal mine. unless we do something about these enormous benefits that are paid to public employee unions in america, we are going to see the kind of california fiscal crisis gets maimed. maine, hit nevada, every state and city in america is not going to be able to pay their bills and a very important public services we rely on are going to

be put in jeopardy or else the alternative to that and i think this is the alternative to public sector unions comets to double and in some cases triple the taxes on american workers to pay for these benefits. ladies and gentlemen a sham has got to come to an and and i urge you to come back with a guilty verdict. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you mr. moore, professor schoomaker. >> goldplated benefits, we hear all of this rhetoric but this number simply don't back it up. in the last couple of months alone one u.s. senator has twice publicly claim the average salary of a public schoolteacher is $89,000. he was off by $40,000. it is only $49,000 a year. to listen to the rhetoric one would imagine throughout wisconsin and other states there are altar setup in which

taxpayers are sacrificed and ungrateful public employees lap up the flowing blood. this simply isn't the case. across the country on average 3% of state and local budgets are obligated towards pensions. that is on the high and. in wisconsin it is 1.5%. wisconsin's pension fund is fully funded to 99.7%. there is no gaping crisis of pension fulton money in wisconsin are many other states and as you have heard in the testimony, the budget deficits are city -- sitting states and states to prohibit collective are getting have budget deficits and in some cases greater ones in the states that allow collective are giving for public employees. it is true as one of the witnesses said, that employment relationship between an employee in the government is a little bit different than say a whole foods with competition from other grocery stores. and why is it than without that

competition the numbers show that the salary come the so-called goldplated benefits, simply aren't that high. the average pension in wisconsin per year is $21,000. there are watches in this room that costs more than that. in california and is $27,000 a year. 75%, 75% of the pensioners in california under the state system get less than $36,000 a year. goldplated, indeed. as we said in the opening, much of this prosecution has been aimed at inflaming rhetoric, inflaming outrage, gratifying outrage and simply not grounded in the facts. it has also been an attempt to distract in the real cause of the problem. the state budget shortfalls were not caused by public employees or their unions. they were not caused by collective bargaining. they were caused by a cratering in the economy and particularly in the stock market that was a result of irresponsible policies

and runaway dreams on wall street. [laughter] >> thank you, your honor. if the amounts collected in state pension funds right now had simply been invested at the rate of return on a thirty-year t-bill from 2007 onward, simply at that return it would have generated just under $1 trillion. these are manageable problems. again at the high-endhigh-end, 3% of a state and local budgets are going to pensions. that is at the high-end. that is in california. there are problems. states can pass laws to prohibit double dipping. states can and most must have passed laws to exclude budget target -- budget bargain agreements and in most states collective bargaining does not control them. there will need to be some innovative solutions to solve

the problems that we face but abolishing collective bargaining as some states are not trying to do are putting the blame precisely on the workers who teach our children to put out our fires. >> professor you might want to address the jury, not the audience. >> putting the blame on them is though they are responsible won't help solve the problem and out of the this luge and seven offered with collective bargaining will improve the plight of private-sector workers. what we have before us then -- you have been asked to find whether it is beyond a reasonable doubt prosecution is made their case and i think clearly they have not. fortunately in this setting we can rise above the this sort of outrage and calculated rhetoric that we read in the opinion pages or that we hear on tv from the talking heads and we can think clearly, look at the

figures we have been given and make a decision that not only preserves the right of those who choose to organize in a collective way, to bargain against an employer, a fairly powerful employer, the government. as we saw it has helped to reduce levels of political cronyism and the spoils system and resulted over the last 40 years in the radical decrease in work stoppages and strikes in the public sector. collective bargaining is an incredibly successful in that regard. to dismantle it now is raw partisan politics and is not good for our policy or our communities. >> thank you professor. [applause] alright ladies and gentlemen of the jury now it is your time. thank you free or patience. thank you for serving. you have heard the expert witnesses. referred statements from both the prosecution knew of her them from the defense. it is now up to you to decide

the guilt or innocence of ms. leanne professor paul schumacher and the supporters of public unions in america. now the way this is going to work as the foreman is going to tally the votes and announced the verdict. the decision will be read by the jury and it will be a unanimous vote. it will be a majority vote, excuse me not a unanimous vote is what i'm trying to say. is that clear? majority and not unanimous, very well. alright members of the jury, please begin your deliberations. you have two minutes to deliberate. [laughter]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> your honor? >> yes, you have a question? can i repeat the charges and are they federal and state? just a moment. the charges are, where are the charges? [laughter] are unions good or bad for america? public-sector unions good or bad

for america? [inaudible conversations] >> you read at the very beginning the accusation. [inaudible conversations] 30 seconds, jurors. [inaudible conversations]

five seconds, jurors. two seconds, jurors. [laughter] all right, jerry. time is up. borman heavy reach a verdict? i am the judge tonight. [laughter] you can do it next year. they are tallying the votes ladies and gentlemen. it should be just a moment. will the defense rise? mr. foreman, have you reached a verdict?

[laughter] is the -- i i know the suspenses killing all of you. these lights are killing me. [laughter] we just need a majority, not a unanimous vote. kangaroo court. form forman would you please read the verdict? >> we the jury find -- we the jury find the defendant guilty. [applause] >> order, order! order! as judge i'm going to now --

5-7. [applause] you did say guilty, did you not? okay, ms. lee, professor shoemake or, and you and your union brothers and sisters have been found guilty of subverting the public good and find citizens of this great nation. therefore were the powers vested in me, i hereby condemn you and your union leaders to receive measly social security benefits instead of your cushy teachers pensions answered jack skewing their unions to obamacare rules rather than the current exemption. [applause] you will also be condemned to spend the next 24 hours confined to a featherbed at valley's hotel where scabs and minimum-wage will be subject to whips and lashes. forman would, take them away. [applause]

>> more now from c-span2's booktv. coming up in a moment to a discussion on mark mardis books on dietrich on hoffer's letters and papers from prison. detert bonhoeffer was a --

against the nazis. he was arrested in 1943, killed in 1945 by the gestapo. next martin marty talks about his book, detert bonhoeffer'srt letters and papers from prison, but every. from the printers row lit fest this is 40 minutes. [applause] thank you very much and welcome to the printers row lit fest. we are delighted to have this opportunity to talk with you about a particularly interesting idea, the idea of the biography not of a person but of a book. and helping us to parse through that idea is the recent author of just such a biography, dr. martin marty who isou professor emeritus of history a. the university, religious

history at the university ofbi chicago, as many of you already wellog know.pape he has written a biography of dietrich bonhoeffer's letters and papers are imprisoned. it is one of three books that is kicking off to start our discussi want to read the press' description of what they're trying to do and then ask dr. marty to comment on it. they say that this new series recounting the complex and fascinating histories of important religious texts written for general readers by leading authors and experts is intended to trace how their reception, interpretation and influence have changed over time. often radically. as these stories remind us, all great religious books are living things whose careers in the world can take the most unexpected turns.

now, dr. marty, you've also recently completed and published a biography of martin luther, a lutheran who somewhat predated dietrich bonhoeffer. [laughter] what's the difference between with writing a biography of a figure like luther and be -- and a book like bonhoeffer's? >> there are far more similarities than i thought i would find. when princeton university press described this series and asked me if i would be a kicker offer of it, it took me about five minutes to sign the contract. it was a new challenge because i didn't know anything like this. the first thing you have to do if you're writing a biography of the book is forget about biological analogies. that is you don't want to say the book was born this way and went through adolescence and all those things. [laughter] they don't do that. but they have careers, and they change in the light of the

passage of time. think of almost any book you read 20, 30 years ago and think of its reputation now. think of the vonnegut books and the books that were big in the '60s and '70s if you're old enough to have been around then. very different books now. malcolm muckeridge marshall mcclewin. i'm in the ms today. [laughter] cultural superstars then, and they don't show up now. so that's, i think, the first thing. the other thing is the biography of a person, you dig into letters, you dig into reminiscences and so on. here you have mainly a narrative of where it's gone, what's happened to it along the way. and it was such a delightful concept that when i met the other authors and like to tell

them about who some of these authors are or what they're going to write about because that gives you a sense of where you can take this, the diversity that's been going on. >> the other two books that have already been published in the series, one is a biography of augustin's confession by gary wells who has, of course, written about augustin several times during his career. and then this is a biography of the tibetan book of the dead by donald lopez who's up at the university of michigan. each of them treats this idea in each of the three in a different way, and still, and some of the books that are still to come in this series also promise to be very interested. vanessa oaks is writing, bruce chilton who many of you may have heard of is writing a biography of the book of revelation. [laughter] so -- >> if he finishes it in a hurry.

>> yeah, yeah. right. [laughter] i think october 20th is the deadline. [laughter] the dead sea scrolls. you did, you did try to avoid those anthroto morphic moments, but i thought one thing you said that was quite important was to think about, um, not just the physical object, but its soul, the book's soul. so in thinking about dietrich bonhoeffer and what he left postwar theology, what is the -- when you were thinking about the soul of his letters and papers, how did you come to assess that in terms of its effect on its readersesome? >> aristotle and leon cast and i define soul this way -- [laughter]

>> good threesome. >> soul is the integrated, vital power of any organic body so long as it is open to possibility and opportunity and so on. um, a corpse has the same corpuscles that the hand did, but it can't do anything anymore. what's missing? soul. and i think that's what i look for in bonhoeffer. for those of you who haven't done a lot with bonhoeffer, i'll just say a few little things about him. the first thing that strikes me is he lived as long as martin luther king. when i'm on campuses and very often senior generation, i often ask them name four people in, say, the spiritual field that made living in the 20th century worthwhile. well, you hear mother teresa, you'll hear martin luther king, dorothy day and bonhoeffer, they tend to be the top four on the list my part of the world will say. and he lived to be 39, and the

last three years were in prison. so, basically, he lived to be 36 plus the little book i wrote about. this is the newest edition of the book i wrote about. this is the one you might want to buy because it's affordable and carry bl, and this one costs $80. but it's a 16-volume series of somebody whose writing, basically, stops at age 36. and meanwhile, he was active in underground activities, he was in, a double agent in the cia of germany, if you want to call it that. he spent a year in america, he went to barcelona, he had a church in london. all these things are crammed in there, and my search for his soul is what held him together. that's obvious that as a christian he was an ordained minister, you naturally look for where the resources of that faith were. and i find that he's held together by promise.

the last thing he said as they led him to the gallows was, "this is the end, but for me it's the beginning." and you can read that a lot of ways. you can take a traditional doctrine of the resurrection, you can take it somebody who's fulfilled all he can in his life, and yet he can foresee what's going to happen because everything was unfinished at that time. so i think that was where i most saw his soul. >> one reason, of course, that we write biographies of anyone or anything is that we believe that the impact that that person has had on others has been in some way transformative, the biography of washington, a biography of lincoln, think of any of those. and so of necessity, a biography of a book is about the impact that it has had on its readers and the uses to which they've put that.

and so of particular interest to me as i was reading your biography of the letters and papers was to think of the different kinds of people that it changed. do you want to -- and they are not at all similar in many ways which is fascinating too. do you want to -- can you speak to that? >> the book has been translated into 34 languages. i can why it in bogota, i -- buy it in bogota, i bought it in cape town. you can buy it anywhere in the world. it, obviously, travels. people read it, things happen. its first round happens to young people who are thinking of vocation. some of them wanted religious vocations, but others steered their life in the light of it. , that's not the central use today, but just the variety of some of these impacts. the first, i brought a couple samples along. the first big book about him gives you a sample of what it goes to. an east german communist

theologian -- that sounds very contradictory, but the stalinists were running east germany. in fact, the very town where bonn bonhoeffer went to school and studied was one of these headquarters. they allowed a few universities and a few theological fact faculties, humboldt university was one of them. and they had to allow theological faculties because the majority of the people were catholic and reformed, and they had to comply with what was pushed on them. but subvertly they were keeping things going. my wife and i visited a theologian. their daughter was a 14-year-old, and she could never go to university because she was going to confirmation class. they couldn't suppress -- they couldn't suppress the act of worship, but they could keep everything else out. bonhoeffer's adapting to that, and he takes all the passages in

scriptures or anywhere else in which jesus is the figure that impels you out into the world, and that's what could happen here. now, whether miller is himself a communist or not, it was approved by the communist authorities. then another sample -- i won't do more of them, but it'll show you a variety -- in south africa, this is bonhoeffer in south africa. we visited there the last year there was apartheid. a young leader in a movement that helped bring down the regime, they were reading bonn how farer because they were -- bonhoeffer because they were learning from him how you outlast regimes. and it had an enormous impact in that way. the hardest thing, i think, was to figure germany itself. first of all, the conventional historic lutherans had real problem with him because luther

liked where paul the apostle wrote every soul should be subject to the higher powers, and if you resist them, you're condemned. obviously, bonhoeffer's resisting the powers, he's ready to kill the head man. what are you going to do with him? his own parish was not allowed to use his name as a memorial. the closer you got to that, the east germans had taken to it right away because he was upsetting some of the things that they were after. today it's very different. there's a bonhoeffer church in london where he served for a year. almost anywhere in the world except his home church, he's not the only prophet that's had that trouble. [laughter] but they're getting, now, to the point where they're accepting it as you do. they do not think and i do not think he was perfect. he didn't think he was perfect. he was, essentially, a pacifist, and pacifists don't normally try

to bring down the head guy. and he was in a conspiracy that finally failed, the death penalty came about because the bomb didn't go off on hitler all the way. how can you do that? by the way, in prison he was also writing a book called "ethics," it's a very important book that people still read. and how can you do this? you're a pacifist, you don't believe in killing, and yet you are in on this plot. and he said, if you were in a street and a madman were coming along in a truck and you had the chance to grab the wheel even though it's going to kill him, you'd do that, wouldn't you? i like to quote paul, a professor in paris from chicago some years ago who said sometimes you live by what you call an ethic of distress. you don't say what you're doing is right, you're saying the circumstance in which you have to do something as one novel in

world war ii said, you must do what you must do and then say your prayers. [laughter] so he had a theology and an ethic, and then he had to interrupt it for this and then go back to it. and i think the chronicle of that, you don't find that in the book of his letters because he knows he's doomed at the end. but these letters are written for different purposes. he has a fiancee, a very young fiancee, writing love letters to her. he wrote -- i can't do c-span without mentioning his best friend in life, his biographer and someone -- he's been in chicago sometimes, 1966 i got a signed one from him. i'm a groupie, too, like to collect autographs and books. [laughter] and the letters to him. his parents, letters full of culture. can you send me a new copy of

plutarch? one of the reasons? he liked fat books. because some of the letters were in code. if you wonder why the letter the, page 1, put a pinprick through the t. page 3 he put it through h. takes a long time to do a sentence, but plutarch served well for that. and he kept those things going. so that combination. but most of the deep letters are the ones that have drawn the most attention on the world and were those to his best friend. and these were hidden. obviously, some of them were legal, but many weren't. they were hidden in gas mask canisters. they were dug up years later. people would find out where they were. and none of this would exist it can not for the best friend. he saved them. so many people asked to see them, and he stitched them together and made the book. >> and it's an interesting fact about all three of these books that are launching this series.

in many ways they're not books that someone sat down to write for a particular audience, the tibetan book of the dead really also stitched together by the person who discovered those texts and sort of americanized them. bonhoeffer, certainly, never would have imagined his letter ors and papers being assembled in this form. and, of course, augustin, although we see him sitting and writing in picture, he had scribes that were doing the work for him. sort of -- the idea that a book effects people justifies a biography. another thing that fascinates us about people and that we look to read about when we read their biographies are the turning points in their lives. that mark a shift in perspective or a new chapter. what turning points did you find

in the life of letters and papers from prison? >> one of the most interesting ones was the common touch. bonhoeffer was from an aristocratic family, his father was a top professor of psychiatry in germany at the time. very sheltered life, very privileged life, a nonreligious life. basically, their mother taught them some hymns, and he graduated from berlin and got a one-year scholarship to america. and we're talking 1931. he headed to union seminary in new york, and his best friend there was frank fisher who was a african-american, the only one there. and he took him to ab sin yang baptist church, and i think that's a big turning point. he really learned -- you have to remember, a berlin professor, i would say their books, their footnotes had footnotes, it was that kind of world he lived in. [laughter] and here he is in the baptist

church, he fell in love with the music. he came back in 1939, his friends wanted to protect him. they smuggled him back to new york. he didn't stay there more than three months, and he said i can't dunk this, i have to be back. if germany's going to survive, i have to be a apartment in its suffer -- a participant in its suffering too. so i think that carried through all the way. this vision of peace was interesting to me. he picked it up in barcelona and mexico. he was planning, when arrested, to go to meet gandhi. and, again, the peace vision was very big for him. the day hitler came to power, 1933, he was giving radio address. i didn't know it until i was reading the good new biography of him. it was the only time he was ever on the radio. it was cut off in the middle. we who like romance would say hitler's people turned it off.

the engineers made a mistake. [laughter] it was on the principle of having a finishing uhrer -- fuhrer. some of the people in the catholic and lutheran churches played up to hitler. there was a movement in which they tried to make hiterer's germany into -- hitler's germany into a christian anti-semitic force. the vast majority was just sort of silent. what can you do in the middle of all that? but he got committed very early and hung out with the whole underground of people. i think the other thing that i would say is turning point is a new today we call it the ecumenical movement n. the 1930s it was being born, and they wanted to form what became the world council of churches. it was postponed until after the war because of the war. but he was an early agent of it,

and that's one of the things that served his cause. he got to conferences in the switzerland, sweden, england. the archbishop who was over anthony eden was his contact person. and what you had there, some of you have seen the movie valkyrie, but that's the circle he was with. and they are, again, aristocratic military people who wanted the allies to drop the idea of unconditional surrender. because they said if that happens, then germany will surrender, and we can rebuild and so on. anthony eden was not ready to bite it. it would have been high risk for anybody. but, again, the exposure to people of the other churches around the world, catholic, almost none of that happening in the '30s. so i think that opened him to a larger vision. >> the book you cite there from

the church to the world partly grows out of this idea that came in one of his late letters that you mentioned. he talks about the world that has come of age. and that phrase and the implications of that then were seized by a variety of people in the years after the book was first published. i mean, can you talk a little bit about how the uses of the book by the various camps, if you will, of theologians and philosophers had ab impact on -- an impact on postwar germany and then, by expension, others. >> and others, including america and england. yes. my, yes. when you think of a book as a life, you have to think of anybody you know when you're writing about it. if you're ab abused child of that person, you know a secret about 'em, and you can never treat them some other way. if they have a humility and an

inner aristocracy, you know it, and you're guided by it along the way. so when you pick the life of a book, you do the same kind of thing as this man in germany did it. then it traveled to england. there was a famous book called "honest to god" by a british bishop. it traveled to america, the death of god theologians had their moment with them. many of you may not know that one october day "time" magazine had a cover saying god is dead, and they wrote about three people who thought so. and then easter came along, and god was living again, but they had their moment. [laughter] and dietrich bonhoeffer was their hero. why? back to your question. some of the radical ideas he was pursuing that adds to the interest in the book, he had seen the terror of a religion taken over by the state.

in a way that's what hitler was doing. he saw a lot of false piety, people pray, pray, pray and then they're anti-semitic or something like that, really bothered him. so he had kind of a three-pronged thing. first of all, we use the word secularization. he saw secularization. germany, which had this long religious tradition, it was being jetsonned in the universities, and some of the books he read while in prison dealt with that. and so he, a strong influence on him was carl bart in switzerland, and he just studied as much as he could from the book. bart had written a book called -- it wasn't a book, it was a 50,000-word footnote. [laughter] you could count 'em. called "religion is unbelief,

"because he believes people form a caste about their religion that keeps god from them. so he didn't think the a total tragedy that secularization was coming, he said, let it come, live in it. don't force people back in the middle ages, live in it. the world has come of age, the german word is adulthood. of this concept, this is the one i have some problem with because if you look at western europe, you really believe it. if you look at the modern university, you really believe it. if you look at entertainment, you really believe it. around the world religion's never had it so good. religions are booming. in bonhoeffer's part of the world and ours there are 3,000 fewer christians every 24 hours. in sub-saharan africa there are 18 million more every 24 hours. oceans of ink -- 18,000 more

every 24 hours. we're more religious, and we're more secular. a great student of this, david martin, once said i can name this series in one phrase. is this religious or secular i'm talking about? texas baptist millionaire. [laughter] he doesn't want his preacher to talk about allowances and is so on. and the other -- but that led him to that whole new mark, if you will. he wasn't looking for a market, he was ready to die. but then he talked about religionless christianity, and that's what confused people. he used the word to show how you develop a piety so god can't get at you, and he wanted you to get rid of all those things. he didn't stop worshiping, he led worship for the fellow prisoners, but he did believe that the show we put on very often stands in the way of it. and then the question is, what should he say about jesus christ

in the whose divinity he believed? but he said the church should always argue about what all this means, and if all the things in the new testament and the church that would fit in religion christianity is jesus christ as the man for others. his whole life is that, and we're supposed to model it that. so you can carry these to go deeper in your faith, or you can carry it and say let's throw it all out. >> if you were, if you were to identify the single biggest impact of this book on religious thought today, what would you say that it is? i know we'll -- if you want, if any of you would like to ask dr. marty questions, i encourage you to line up ott that microphone in the middle -- at that microphone in the middle aisle while he's answering this question. >> i think there are two main sets of impact.

he's still as big as ever. this year there are two monstrous new biographies of him. and little ones. there are tens of thousands of things that have been written about him, so he's as prime as ever. but they sort of run on two tracks. the insiders, the people who have studied him all these years, the people who knew him and so on and weren't worried about detail, pick up on this religious christianity theme and jesus is the man for others. the evangelicals which weren't well known in tennessee in 1931, '39 now are the most prosperous religious elements around the culture. they were marginal. they were hillbillies. but when -- in america he goes to a fundamentalist preacher in new york, and the guy's preaching the bible. that's better than a lot of

stuff, could have been union seminary. no fence to union seminary. [laughter] he didn't believe in these literal second comings that were very big for them. he wasn't a literalist at all, so they were very suspicious of him. but as they see his overall impact, they're taken over and i would say one is impact i've described, the other is the plain letters as a whole. the publisher gave him a cover of his cell from win. windows too high to look out. he always identified when a thrush was singing out it and so on, but he could never look out. teeny-weeny little closet-sized cell.

and writing players that are much used. i reproduced a couple of them. some hymns which are now in hymn books of catholics as well as everybody else. and i think just the fact that his spirit -- used the word soul before -- has survived those circumstances and has a strong impact on people today. so one is the whole book, the other is late theology and final letters. >> sir, you had a question. >> yes. thank you. pacifism, when you say bonhoeffer was a pacifist, pacifists are against the death penalty. bonhoeffer was trying to be part of the firing squad. and you notice how he had a conflict with the lutheran thing about supporting government. well, jesus wiped out authority in mark ten 42:43. show us why bonhoeffer couldn't

respond to that and resist? >> good question. i'm glad i don't have to write a biography on the book of jesus. [laughter] i don't know any place where one little text people make a lot of. jesus' own texts are nonviolent throughout. the sermon on the mount, you turn the cheek, you do all these things. and he's rarely been followed all the way. bonhoeffer, certainly, made an appeal to it. his probably greatest book, most influential book is a little book called "the cost of discipleship," which is nothing but his interpretation of jesus and the sermon on the mount. it's a very famous line in there, you know, jesus says you follow me, you're high risk. and bonhoeffer said, when jesus christ calls a person, he calls him or her to die. so he was that devoted to what's this. but he -- what's there. but he also enjoyed the life

that jesus also enjoyed. >> bonhoeffer could have died either way. >> with what's that? >> bonhoeffer could have died either way, nonviolently resisting hitler. he did die probably trying to resist hitler. >> yeah. well, it took him l a year and a half to get to him, but, yes, he knew he was doomed. again, if you're trying to shoot the head man, you're doomed. they had all the power, and they got him. so there's nothing, there's no other alternative for him. he could only live by his witness. thank you. >> another question. sir, thank you. >> as one who's not even sure how to spell bonhoeffer, i know little about him. but what led up to his imprisonment and final death? what was the background? why was he in jail? >> okay. that's a very good question. and, by the way, my name is marty, m-a-r-t-y.

[laughter] >> i've heard of you. >> bonhoeffer, and you should hear the people in taiwan pronounce it. [laughter] cape town, their accent. why he was in prison? first of all, he was a resistor all along of hitler. and those people in the cat click the lutheran and reform churches that resisted were really marked. everyone knows the only peer for bonhoeffer was martin neumiller, he'd been a u-boat captain in world war i, and he says first they came for labor, and i didn't speak up. and then they came for the jews, and i didn't speak up. then they came through -- he goes through a whole list. and he said finally they came for me, and there was no one left. and i think bonhoeffer was with that movement from 1933 on.

so he's a marked man. every move, the more records we have, gestapo knew every move he was making. well, they thought they knew. he did other things on the way. finally, he was caught -- some of you following news may know of a major conductor who was a nephew of bonhoeffer. one of bonhoeffer's sisters was married to him, they had his number. one of his sisters married to a jewish lawyer, and they had to leave for london. he would have been killed. so all these things raised all these flags. and i think he would have been put in prison anyhow, but the death penalty waited until the attempt on hit her's life. and -- lit hitler's life. and when they got all the files, bonhoeffer was with technically in what was like the cia, they had smuggled papers there. and when a different faction

took over and they got the keys to all the files, he was guilty as could be. >> he was found out. yes, sir. >> so you mentioned that universities in europe became very secular, but africa became very religious. does it bother you that more educated part of population became secular, but very uneducated became very religious? and yesterday professor christopher lectured here, and he said people who do not believe in evolution should not use cell phone. [laughter] or if you don't believe in science, you should not use the fruit of science, you can pray. [laughter] what is your -- >> yeah. i believe in evolution, but i also use a cell phone. [laughter] yeah. well, that's an extreme statement, but there is something to it. in general, it's been not only

evolution, but many other features. i did an eight-volume study, six-volume study of fundamentalisms around the world in 23 different religions, and all across the board they they e critical of modernity, etc. , and yet in every case they can outdo moderates and liberals and use the media. they were better at radio, better at television, better at internet and so on. so you put these worlds together in very different ways. the generalization is certainly true, the majority of people in higher learning do this. i think of darwin said when i start out in science, i put my beliefs on paper in a drawer, and years later i pulled it out, and it was crumbled and old. he hadn't worked at it. a lot of people in sciences do work at it and think fresh thoughts about religion. but your generalization, i think, is genre true. --

generally true. but i don't think it's uneducated. again f i took you to -- i taught at cape town the year before the change, and the leaders of the yes, christian resistance and a couple jewish resistance there to the government were their top scientists at the hospital where christian barnhard was. and i had seminars with people, in fact, six different religions in south africa. everybody's there. hindus were there all the way back to gandhi's time. communists, catholic protestants, so many gradations in those days. black, colored, everything. and we studied the religious view of human rights, and they were highly educated people and highly intensely religious. i think it depends on what you devote yourself to, and if you're a busy scientist, that's what you devote yourself to.

>> and i, although the question wasn't directed to me, i'll say, you know, having read these three books and read you the partial list of some that are to come in the series, there's certainly an opinion in parts of the academy that there are still, there is much to be learned from understanding how the great religious texts or many face bear on the world today. and partly what we see, i'm a journalism professor. what we see around the world, too, is as people acquire literacy, they acquire the urgency to ask questions in new ways. and partly, we see that to in many institutions are rejected for the first time because someone suddenly getting the ability to ask questions. t an interesting phenomenon that makes books like this no the less important. so, sir, you have a question.

>> yes, my name is gary. i could pretend i'm in occasional audiences on c-span where it's a think tank and they're unemployed. christopher hill was a co-author of the book, he talked about physics for poets. by the way, he thinks global warming is a problem, he does. and be i interested my -- mentioned my interest in h irk- hi my --hi-fi equipment. i mentioned stipeway, but it -- steinway, but it includes the amply fire, and christopher hill said he'd like a steinway as well. so we have to notice the difference between short-term trends and long-term trends. if people are more religious than they were yesterday than today, it doesn't necessarily mean they will always be more religious. so trying to come up with

something worth you're hearing, how can will people believe in the literary reality about faith when there aren't the same kind of supernatural miracles that are supposed to prove that god exists such as the parting of the red sea? and even a silent film by cecil b. demille. i saw that part. they used gelatin, and there were heat jets that purposed, and -- burned, and like john fulton did in the later movie, they came together by reversing the movie, reversing the films. i like special effects. >> [inaudible] >> oh. well, about how long -- >> well, i think i've got the heart of your question, and i'll give a quick illustration -- in 1960 the book came out called the year 2000. wonderful book, early use of computers just coming in.

and he -- they, hudson institute put it together -- and the book starts with long-term, multifold trends. and among them the first 18 were about secularization and religion. so they said the future of the world will be that everything will be determined impairically -- impairically. there were about ten adjectives. empirical, concrete, pragmatic, a whole list of these things. and then they said, because they were not dumb people, we're looking long term instead of the short term. and if you look at the long term, he listed a lot of philosophers of the 20th century, almost all of them envision a future in which the human story is too loaded up to

be carried along pragmatically and contractually. and, therefore, we foresee it could take many forms. it could be revitalization of the old religions, ominous new religions. we're seeing plenty of that. a lot of that's going on. and i would just say everything we know so far about ourselves and people as a whole is there is so much we don't know, so much mystery, so much amplitude that every breakthrough in science means another breakthrough in arts, in religion too. so -- >> one brief follow up. there was a book i remember reading -- >> we have to,. -- >> religion without revelation. >> that's one of the ones we've quoted. >> we've come to the end of our time. i thank you for your attention. one idea that is, that dr. marty quotes is the idea from another

author on the subject. as they're expressed, bonhoeffer's ideas are not merely disturbing, but they're actually dangerous. and we've even seen some of that in our discussion today. and the impact of dangerous ideas on culture and society has always been an important one, and i personally thank dr. marty for writing this biography to remind us of those ideas in the work of dietrich bonhoeffer. thank you for coming today. you'll be able to meet dr. marty. [applause] he will autograph books for you

nag said discussion on the first two years of barack obama's presidency. we will hear from awkward eric alterman, author garrett graff of the washingtonian and katrina vanden heuvel editor and publisher of the "nation magazine." from the 2011 los angeles times festival of books, this is an hour. >> hello, good morning. i am not steve clemons. [laughter] my name is nick goldberg. and the editor of the editorial page and "the los angeles times." [applause] i am still in los angeles? [laughter] i was called in at the last moment to moderate this panel because steve clemons can't be here. he is one of a couple of people that dropped out of this panel.

.. and ask them questions. so back in 2006, it gerrit wrote the following. a few short years ago he wrote, no one had heard of this skinny chicago state senator with the big ears and funny name. now all bets are off.

according to advisers, colleagues and friends, obama just might be willing to be the next president the next president of the united states. would be the capstone of a rise for politicians whose charisma and personal story as kenyon, half cans in hawaii, a harvard educated has breathed life into the democratic party. at the heart of obama mania is his personality and presence. his charisma seems effortless. who is that guy? he certainly got it. he describes obama as the third african-american since reconstruction to serve in the senate. he delivered the keynote address at the 2004 convention when a grammy for the audio version of his memoir, which is on "the new york times" bestseller list for an leibowitz. and then he said, he need look no further than his desk in the senate chamber to be reminded of the last politician embodies the hopes of a generation. the inside is signed by his previous occupants, including bobby kennedy.

so with that, here we are today. conservatives as we all know how it still question whether president was born. it's even more shocking estate degree to which progressives are to some degree are overrepresented on this panel are disappointed because obama has been -- [laughter] how that turned out to be exactly the president that we expected. the issues are never as. you know, obama has failed to on one degree or another -- i'm sorry? [inaudible] despite coming into office as the anecdote to george w. bush, he's failed to undo the bush national security state and failed to close guantánamo. he's taken it be assured

deficits that the issue of jobs. we know many of the progressive criticisms. i'm hoping today will be able to have a serious discussion about whether progressives are justified in their disappointment and hope i'm not, how much of this is obama sought, how much is the fault of the republicans and the philip or. if obama is right when he says, but it's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. and but that cannot wait on a turn it over to garrett, the editor of the "washingtonian" magazine. his first book was called the first campaign: globalization, the web in the race for the white house to which examined technology in the 2000 campaign. his second book is just coming out called threat matrix: the fbi for in the age of global terror and that was out last he said? the web that you open it for us?

[applause] well, as befitting a seat on the stage, i think if they started off in politics working on howard dean's presidential campaign and i think i represent the far right wing of the panel today. [laughter] so, i think that the first two years of obama in a lot of ways just truth to the old political saying that one campaign is in poetry and governance in prose and what the lesson obama has learned in many hard ways over the last two years is that governing is a lot harder than talking about governing and that as much as we like to think.closing guantánamo with you an easy thing to do, it turns out that for all sorts of reasons, only some of which are

related to the republican party, it is not. and that is a subject i spent a lot of time searching on over the last two years as i've been researching this book on the fbi. so i followed a lot more of obama's national security plans and strategies and evolution then i have some mouse the issues, which katrina and eric will talk about. the world is an immensely complicated place than we have seen no, repeatedly buffeted by global events outside of his control coming and of course when he did with the financial crisis up until in the last couple of weeks the unrest in the arab world and the earthquake in japan, that one of the challenges i think has also become clear is how little of the presidency is set to the

president and that much of what happens during a president's term is about reacting to events rather than necessarily creating the events as we might have wanted him to. with what i think -- and then i'll sort of pass it on down the road here. what concerns me more than sort of where obama is or where the republican party is is i think we are entering an era in politics where the thing that concerns me the most is that we are no longer serious about solving the big problems. and that was sort of the subject of may may 1st book in 2007, looking ahead to just shoot us any presidential race in the big issues in education and health care, energy and environment and jobs and so on. and i think that you can really

see that plane out of washington right now as we have this debate about the budget and this budget debate in so many ways has come about paul ryan and his plan and thinking of the budget. but the idea that we as a nation can all agree that there is one guy in washington talking seriously about the budget is an indictment of everyone else in congress who is not, that we are sort of at this point where you want to talk about the budget. there is one guy who's taking this really seriously. he's on his thinking about how to solve the budget problem. these are huge issues. i mean, generational issues that are going to have to be solved one way or another and the fact that there is not a larger debate that involves more people on both sides of the aisle i think is a stunning indictment of where we are in a political

process. >> thank you, gear it. i think the debate in this country -- >> media should take a second century b.c. >> don't waste the time. i'm editor and publisher of the nation. >> the lady needs no introduction. >> i am just eager to jump in. i don't have a book. i decided not to think added. i do think our fundamental debates in this country, but the disconnect during the debates in washington and what is going on in the country is radically disconnect good as we've seen in decades and then to some of the problem of what obama has to address. but let me step back a minute if they could. i met president obama once. the only thing he said when he found out it was editor of the nation was to remind me -- [inaudible] as michael payton said, -- that

said, i want to make the case that president obama in his first two years did pass to jerry lambert pieces of legislation. the health care legislation in the financial reform much as nation. but they were not commensurate with the scale and scope this country faces and one is part of a failure of leadership, but also the systemic structural problems that have made our system dysfunctional or not serving people. this is what eric spoke is so much about. the power of money in the system, the power of lobbyists. the power of those forces to dilute legislation into republican party at its main task was to delegitimize, destroy president obama. the health health care bill in y

memory was the first major piece of legislation in the last 40 or 50 years have passed without a single republican vote. and that's sad, that's important. i also think the stimulus, the recovery was diluted because of republican pressure and also the committee has many democrats. and the failure, his garret was talking about, the message that this was a recovery program allowed too much of the media that doesn't serve the people to complete the recovery program so that it led to the emergence of a right-wing populist movement and in anger -- a justified anger at the recovery was not efficient again for the scale of the economic crisis. and as we see today as we sit here, president obama because of the diluted piece of financial

reform legislation resuscitated, but did not restructure the financial year so that the banks are more powerful than ever, hyper leveraged, do not serve the people. they remain masters of the universe and that is very dangerous and the corporate bunny in our system, unprecedented amount post citizens united will continue to allow the power to dominate our society. i think one of the centro mistakes president obama made with demobilizing those who supported him. it's not just progressives. it's not just the left. it was a broad-based coalition of young people. african-americans can do single women, but obama cans, conservatives with a conscience because to have -- if he is truly pragmatic president, you want the wind at your back, the people power, which is the only thing sufficient to counter those forces of money,

establishment power. that is the history for a truly transformational change when you have the ability of movement from below to push and pressure presidents, whether it is abraham lincoln as our editorial board member eric phone or write so beautifully in his book, those abolitionists at that time who helped found the nation pushed president lincoln d. on the limits his sound politics. but that is not what we see now because of the demobilization. too small -- team of rivals. remember president obama spoke in the team of rivals, but he didn't bring in a team of rivals. he did not have that voice. even if president clinton's administration, the rubber race didn't have as much power and the great voice he has now, there is another voice to ensure that the voices of people, which

the majority show us in the country believe the real crisis in this country is not a deficit crisis, but a jobs crisis. that hasn't been well represented inside the corridors of power. afghanistan, you know, if we listened to president obama during the campaign and i was when he said progressives need to be as tough and pragmatic about president obama as he is about us. he spoke about afghanistan as the good war and he did that because he needed to show up because of the national security state grip on our politics until we find a way to and that, the president is captive to a large extent. he had to show he was toast. i think what is going on in this country you have the ability. polls are polls of snapshots. the non-core issues, corporate power is another. your trans-partisan majority who want to find a way out of asking the end, the corporate power is too strong in this country.

and they present leadership leadership concedes that. and find a way to build politics around not. and thinking of president johnson, wars kill reform president he is and whatever one thinks of all president depalma, here's a reform. maybe diluted, too limited here but in a serious company is a reform president. it's imperative now for status ends, progressives, citizens of conscious to organize more independently and find ways to try those issues into the next election, but more generally build coalitions that would give space to those progressive politicians in our system working with people, power, to make the changes we need. we are seeing that even a someone just told me this morning that we see more attempts to roll back collective bargaining. the spirit of madison, then come

even though there are losses that progress has changed from his big sandbags. the attempt to rollback the events of the 20th century is something i think now has crystallized attention and made people sit up, wake up. we see in town halls around this country. we'll see more, not just paul ryan, but a broad-based assault on the people understood to be the fundamental pillars of the society pen that's a president to bomb and citizens working inside the elect did cause of this country can make change. thank you. [applause] >> eric, may i briefly introduce you? >> briefly. >> eric is a professor of english and journalism that are put in college and cuny graduate school of journalism. he's the author of many, many books. eight, 10, 12 at this point.

the latest is kabuki democracy, which is just out now. that's it. at the intro. >> i'll do the rest. nick was worried that this pml would be insufficiently controversial between the panelists, so i'm going to do what i can about that. at first i'm going of a short argument with myself and then i'm going to settle argument with garrett and i will try to implicate mix somehow. >> notice katrina is the one who pays his salary, so she is the one who skate any controversy from eric. hi to figure. so i feel kind of like sybil on this panel. they see the audiences about my

age and older so i can say sibyl without much explanation. and my own head i have really for competing arguments about obama that i am not completely sure of which one. it depends on the day. the drive really foresee they occupy in terms of my work right now. one is just what katrina mentioned. he had me over for dinner five years ago when he just become a senator. i have never been so impressed with the politician in my life and i was so moved by this new generation of black leadership. i hope one day my daughter, who just turned 13 might be able to vote for this man for president. it just seems to me i didn't even know at the time that his middle name is hussein. and he seems to be a miracle that that guy is president three years later. i have a lot of problem imagining anyone today who could

be president of the united states who is as smart and as committed to the values and worldview that i hold. i'm sure we have fundamental disagreements, but still i was 2005. bush had just got reelected somehow. when you think about it, it's incredible. i like the guy a lot. i'm sure a lot of you were just crying when grant park that night. so that is part 1. part 2 is this morning i was writing the obama chapter of a book i've been working on for eight years, which is a history of postwar american liberalism which will be out next year called the cause. and the fact is that liberalism is a lot more marginal than we like to think it is for those of us katrina and i like to think it is. franklin roosevelt came to power in an extraordinary situation.

when johnson came to power in an extraordinary situation. it is not that easy to find liberal moments between those two times for the country agreed on the goals and was willing to move forward and make progress in the way that we would define progress. it is a much tougher hall then those people who hold these values as i do understand. in that respect, it is significant that teddy roosevelt proposed national health insurance and made teen 12 and every democratic president since harry truman is straight to pass it on barack obama somehow passed it. it's got a lot of weakness is to it. but it is not nothing. the first years of his presidency was the most consequential democratic president be in 50 years. it is not chopped liver. i don't like chopped liver, but -- [laughter] so that is .2.

at that point needs to them the argument i make in my book, lukey democracy, which i will be signing up to the panel. it is about the system. the system is so -- what i call the system, which has a lot of components. part of it is the filibuster and part of it is the legacy of the most corrupt, incompetent and ideologically obsessed of the last 150 years minimum. what this world needs is a good comparison between the presidency to decide if he's the worst president ever. but there is so much to be done if you just look at the way -- if you look at the waiter set up to handle the oil spill in the mms. no one ever heard of the mms. the only reason they were in the newspapers are oils the list because people were dealing crystal meth out of the offices of the mms in exchange for sex.

it's not a single newspaper in america that had a reporter dedicated to covering the mms. when something happens, which you need the government for, if you saw in katrina and in the regulation of the financial industry. you saw it in baghdad when we invaded a country we had no plan and millions of people were displaced. hundreds of thousands were killed, billions of dollars wasted because the people that ran the government had no respect for governance. eight years with at least a lot of legacy, which the obama administration has had to deal with. the two main problems because katrina did such a good job, being a progressive president is almost impossible today her power is money, more powerful today than two years ago and has plenty powerful two years ago. i quote dick durbin scene of the banks, frankly the own the place, talking about the senate. and the power of the

conservative media to distort and they can possibly sensible discussion of our problems. but you have a difficult issue that the health care bill or cap-and-trade legislation can you discuss whether or not you want to kill your grandma. is that a good idea? or will the government come to your house and arrest you if you put your thermostat over 72? i know you people don't have that problem here, but we have it in new york. i have a great deal of sympathy for a guy trying to talk sense to the american people to treat us like adults and make these difficult trade-offs in a consequence but there's no respect, where he has to go after being asked about it by george stephanopoulos on good morning america, hasegawa shows for certificate because a good majority of republicans don't believe he was born in this country. it's difficult to govern in that context on the one hand.

on the other hand, another project i've been working on a fleet as the series of columns i've written from which it may expand into a short look at what i call the conservative crust work. for the past 40 years, a group of wealthy conservatives joined by religious conservatives cannot join the list of people with other kinds of grievances that have fallen into the movement, although not as many as the media would have us believe have launched an attack on the role that government plays for the poor and the middle class. so first they create their immediate institutions and intellectual traditions to replace with it than the previous establishment. and they went after the tax code. surmount the wealthiest 1% have more than doubled the amount of wealth that they are relative to everybody else. they went from owning 8% of our assets to 20% of our assets. in the past 30 years, the top 1%

has enjoyed 20% of the games. the top 10% has enjoyed 60% of the gains of our society. if you read paul pierson and jacob hacker's book, this all purpose. an income of global developments that affect on this, but the rest of the world has not appeared to lead this degree of inequality. the next phase of the conservative war is what you see in wisconsin, which is the attack on public unions at the last voice to stand up for working people. but the corporations having untraveled power, the only people who can conceivably oppose them are the public unions. so that's why they're going after the public unions. obama refuses to recognize this. he's got this why don't we get along stuff quite why can't we be friends? the fact is we can't. if one say thanks when neither

other side has their hand tied behind the back that i'd will do really well. and we see that in the notion in washington that the only person talking about in school governance in regard to the budget is mr. ryan. mr. ryan is not talking about sensible government. mr. brian is talking about with the conservative media pretends to fight if attacked the city take phone numbers. i'm picking this one out of for nick. if you take brian phone numbers, he does nothing about the data set for 10 years. the deficit themes on the same course at time. but it destroys medicare and because the tax break to the wealthy and increases the tax break to the wealthy that they already have in it destroys medicare and the one of the key components of the social welfare that makes this country.

i am not an economist, but a friend of mine named paul krugman has a nobel prize in economics. he says the only serious -- uses the same phrase. the only serious attack on the long-term entitlement budget deficit is a progressive agenda. is that what it's called? people's budget. he is a nobel prize and says the only serious one is the people's budget. so i'll take his word for it. the fact in washington you have this notion that only paul ryan is serious. he destroys medicare in order to give more money to the wealthy who have had the best 40 years in the history of this country. that is what obama doesn't want to recognize. obama's budget is actually worse than the simpson-bowles touch it, which takes $3 out of spending for every $1 in revenue. that is the democratic decision. three dollars of spending for $1 of revenue.

obama's is worse than that. the conservative or a create the notion that to be serious you have to attack port of an rich rich people. that to me is the problem. [applause] >> so i wasn't necessarily endorsing paul ryan's budget in my earlier comments. >> he said it was the only serious budget. >> are you trying to get this guy lynched quite >> this is exactly what happened the last time, i was the only person who didn't get tremendous applause on the panel in los angeles. >> give him an applause. [applause] what i meant more in paul ryan is that we sort of used, for ryan or whatever your issue, as shorthand for starting the

debate because there is, i think, particularly in washington, a sense that there is not serious thinking about these big issues. that we are so focused on that day to day politics, news winning the day, winning the battle, winning the short-term, that these big problems come down the pike that were not talking about them and working them. so when one person does begin to do that come as paul ryan is for the budget, we end up defaulting to read the handphone that debate. they're sort of an interesting divide in the way that we are talking about this or you have a republican congressman and president of the united states debating this back-and-forth with almost no one else in the picture. >> and income in the people's budget is a serious budget put

forth at members of the caucus a decrease from. and what was striking about it is that a nation needed a slate editorial, paul krugman then did a article about it. it's not just fox news. dana novak in the "washington post" wrote one of the snarky as columns they'd in many years in which he said the conveyed in unhelpful association with the people's republic of china and other socialist undertakings. now when you do that, you have immediately marginalized the possibility of millions of people taking what is a serious budget but a robust social safety net, taxes for the rich come a financial transaction tax and the cuts in the defense budget are all popular majority positions get marginalized in what passes for debate inside washington. and then ryan becomes the prince

because his views accord. what is interesting to me as they worked well inside washington with the republican elite. it taken out on the road, you are seeing not just progressives, but people say what? you're going to take away my medicare and my children? one problem overarching all of this in some ways is the role of government. what is striking. i was just looking at the 2010th survey done by a cornell political scientists. 40% of those surveyed did not know medicare is a government program. [laughter] now, it is so embedded in people's lived experiences, which explains the tea party -- tea party or keep my -- keep government hands off my medicare. >> let me change the subject for a minute.

i want to ask about libya. on the one hand, it's unbelievable to me this president duval press mention the aftermath of the bush administration has managed to emporia last in a new war for completing the two wars that we are currently involved in. on the other hand, he is at least saying this a different kind of war being waged in the name of multilateralism, humanitarianism, in the name of protecting citizens. i'm curious what the three of you think about this. is this a war we should support? is at war at all? >> i think that libya is fascinating because from my standpoint it is the most dangerous for the united states has ever been involved in because what you are beginning to see in libya is thanks to technology, the ability of the united states to go to war without putting any american lives at risk, that we can

launch tomahawk missiles. we can send and predator drones. it involves no boots on the ground and that that -- when you look at what keeps the nation from going to war, it is the sense that you have to put blood and treasure on the line in a war. you have to send americans into harm's way. if we are now able to go to war without putting any blood in the process, not that i think we should be sending americans to be killed in libya. i'm not endorsing that either. but in my mind, what is dangerous about libya is the advances in technology have made it possible for us now to go to war without risking anything. >> how is that different in kosovo? not a single american dead in

kosovo. >> not a single american died in kosovo, but we had troops engaged. we are not even using airplanes in libya right now. >> they don't have antiaircraft. in other words, what to war and nobody died. how is it any different? >> what is different is we did have to commit -- there was a chance that we were going to lose american lives. we could've lost pilots and then we did put troops on the ground as part of the peacekeeping force in kosovo. and what worries me about libya as there is no reason for us not to go to war if all we put on the ground as treasure. >> katrina, you go ahead. >> the issue of drones in foreign policy is very dangerous policy because president obama has used and deployed drones,

you know, 192 times he has escalated it. bush did not use drones. but the larger framework is rehearsing an expanding at the national security state. there is little margin attempts to cut the defense budget, which couldn't be dismissed because it's an opening to look at that hard. it is the expansion of the u.s. -- i don't love the word, that the empire. you have not asked for calm. nato is an american instrument. nato should have been abolished after the cold war. instead we are embroiled not just in libya, which is very dangerous on a number of grounds because it violated the u.n. security resolution almost immediately. i am for the u.n. it was an important one. if abused, it has the potential to diminish and got an already attacked threatened institution. it also changes the narrative in

these extraordinary events in the arab world, we have a sense of people making their own history. not the west is back in there. france, u.k. come united states. the overarching thing which president duval and may not have had the courage to do for a variety of reasons, there's always the fear of another attack. and what that means politically in this country another 9/11. to make the case we must end this war and terror. what happened after 9/11 should have been worse on self policing, intelligence, not putting ground troops in countries, even secretary of defense gates on his way out as you may recall at west point said a few weeks ago and it iser who advised the president to put troops into landware zakat and a stint in iraq should have his head examined. >> this is kind of sacrilegious thing to say in that position.

i don't know everything. last night so i don't know if libya will turn out to be a good idea or bad idea. i never should've gone to congress and got congressional resolution. but i'm sure about. but i am told if we hadn't done this, then there would in a horrible massacre for evil men have a lot of nice people. who here thinks it was a good idea to say everyone to? is not that simple to say i'm against war. wordpress for a reason. it's not a good response. this would have been a massacre, okay? that would've been a massacre of honest people that we could prevent. it's not what powers were quite finish saying it will turn out to be the right decision over time. i don't know if they they could plan. i know they are not evil people. i know that samantha power is someone i respect and admire and understand a lot of the teachers

here and i feel absolutely the same way about barack obama. i would've made a different decision in afghanistan. i would've gone with joe biden's plan, but i don't only thing you may know things i don't know. the fact is the truth is not between war and peace. the choice is between war and massacre in many cases. and i'm hopeful this will turn out to prevent a massacre in which the same time. it is just anti-intellectual and it's kind of -- there's kind of a moral to ask if you know that one evil is uttered in the other because it's impossible to know that. [applause] >> let me ask one final question and that we will open it up to the audience. i am curious looking forward to 2012, you know, with the possibility of a takeover of all three branches of government

theoretically by the republicans. can democrats afford to squabble? is this a time to be closing of ranks and supporting the president? how much fighting can progressives have over the next couple years? [laughter] >> i mean, i think i would use the word fighting. i think what you do is you work to draw issues into the political debate such as it is. on afghanistan, good congressman jim mcgovern from massachusetts, good congressman for north carolina, republican walter jones will travel into primary states to raise the issue of that cannot stand. you do it to give space to issues. not to tackle president obama, but you've got to pick this up. we are trying to change what we

believe is a policy undermining your possibilities as a reform press and. i think we work hard to elect more progressive people in the congress. i think it is a destructive possibility. you build towards 2016 amort to elect as many state legislators. i think so much of the action right now in order to prevent the assault and stop the class where you talk about the state level. a lot of attention needs to be paid. i think president obama has been given a gift with paul ryan's budget and a gift with the republican field that is more looking like the scene in "star wars" at the bar. [laughter] they are really seen the blu-ray of all nine episodes. to release "star wars" before the election.

>> i would echo what katrina is saying with the added point that i think obama had a relatively easy reelection ahead of him. between the power of the presidency as an incumbent between an enormous sum of money. he is going to have most observers agree of a war chest. the amount of tv and staff and volunteer organization that ties is pretty massive. in addition to the simple fact that demographics are now on the side of the democratic party over the next generation to young people continue to vote heavily for democrats in the minority population in the united states, which is

proportionally democratic is growing and expanding and at least in the short term, if those people vote, it's a very easy election for obama. the question i think is if those people and that's voting. >> i think that is a bigger problem than a lot of people do. i am not so sure obama will get reelected. the unemployment is not going down anymore. it is not in that mindset to stimulate the economy and hasn't been all that concerned about jobs in the first place. the problem of japan, but it will and it will stall. housing prices are collapsing now that those programs are gone. it really depends on whether or

not -- it's two things. one is ken republicans nominate someone who strikes the rest of the country as saying. i am saying seriously. and it is not clear that they can. the people who used to be saner acting crazy for the purpose of getting the nomination. i don't mean newt gingrich. he was always crazy. like tim pollin t., if you watch him and he was on jon stewart, he struck me as a nice fellow and personally reasonable guy and now he says a lot of crazy stuff. the question is, will they be able to come back for not? what seems to be happening as they say that mitch daniels to be their guy. the press loves him and he will strike and done things to be a tough. sr is that demographics, i think

the majority for young people will be the hardest people to turn out after the disappointments of 2008 and 2012. what is so horrible -- again, the idea of electing an african-american was so amazing that i think we can offer gives ourselves for whatever aleutians we had up to election day. i think i will forgive myself. but the fact is that the greatest criticism i would make of obama. i wrote a whole book called the system versus barack. katrina is absolutely right. we have to fight to change the system. there's a quote in my book, which i lifted from david remnick spoke from one of obama's pacers in chicago when he was -- what was he? a city councilman.

what was he? a state senator running for state senate office. you know son, you have to learn you can't get the whole hog, you need to take a ham sandwich. obama is taking every him say much he can get. it's not even as horrible. kosher bacon. so never inflict that on your children. either let them make bacon or do not. forget about kosher bacon. so the thing is for me to get more ham than the sandwiches. we need to -- minorities have not gotten much ham at all. they have gotten a big say much of nothing. and so, there won't be in the same numbers at all. i have this theory that the night obama won the election in 2008 was the night he appeared with rick warren and says i

don't agree with everything this guy says, but he saw a. in 2008, what really changed was the republican state how much by the democrat turnout in that it's because they didn't think he was the antichrist. so they are going to turn out. so it is not clear that obama will turn out and it's going to be a much tougher election, which is why it's all the more crazy that people like ralph nader and alexander are still agitating for someone to challenge him, either as an independent or within the democratic party. that is how incumbents lose. the list because their challenge from within. jimmy carter was challenged by ted kennedy. linda johnson was challenged and beaten. the easiest way to boost is to have to fight two battles at once. so as much aside -- even if i fundamentally disagree, i still

wouldn't be against challenging him. i would be as katrina said, building for 2016. phenotype with that, why don't we open it up to questions. ask about the presidency, ask about eric's dietary restriction. [laughter] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] >> i can do that. i mean, i can do part of it.

israel and american are one of my biggest issues, so i pay a lot of attention to it. obama blew it in the middle east. [inaudible] >> it was a very long question. how would one assess obama's dealings with netanyahu and what can we expect from the hamas fatah agreement? is that it? antiship. i don't know about each of. he blew it with regard to the middle east because as these started altogether too often come these started out old and then he ran away and didn't see him again. he gave a great speech in egypt in cairo. the speech itself was great. spoken your day. he had the beginnings of a new movement inside american jewry to give him the space to take a much tougher petition against

the government that most americans said to oppose, the netanyahu government, because if they're a peace agreement the government would fall. so what is antithetical to its interests. and then he got some pushback from the organized jewish community in the united states and from the netanyahu government any luck and went. he walked away. i'll try and do something else. the netanyahu government has shown that they don't have to make any conceptions. the republican congress will be on their side. 90% of the organized american jewish community will be on its side, even though a majority of americans were not. it is a similar problem to many problems we have with their democracy and the power of money and it's outdated mindset. i think what happened -- i can transition here to the home i fatah thing is that the

palestinian authority decided this is just not happening. the only way for this to happen is the united states is willing to exhibit real pressure and enforce difficult concessions and step out to the plate. they are not going to do that. netanyahu said he denounced this agreement and said that hamas has to choose between peace with israel in peace with hamas. and the fact is that you chose peace with israel for the past three years. you've got nothing. you got more settlements. by the way, the whole situation was made far worse by the bush administration's attempt to manipulate the first house tinian election and overthrow the government. it was a true inside directed by the united states. in any case, what you see in

between hamas and fatah is the rejection of the american role and possibility of a peace agreement any time. and may turn out a good thing because making peace without the palestinians is not really peace and the other half of the possibility to undermine the peace. so if you want real peace and there's nothing israel needs more than real peace, you need to make it with a real palace and in government that includes frittata and hamas hamas. but it not going to happen anytime soon. it will be a matter of crisis management between now and then. crisis management is very difficult when you have an organized jewish establishment demanding that you be 110% is really. so when the long run, we'll all be dead. but in the medium term, this may turn out to be a good thing. but it will be very difficult to get from here to there.

>> there is a guy with the microphone over here. how about that person back there. >> thank you all for coming. on wednesday, when we woke up, we heard the announcement about the long form birth certificate and there was a collective cry of outrage in the black community when president obama presented his birth certificate. and i was wondering why would he do it? because i guarantee you that no blood person in america would have wanted him to present at birth certificate. however, i believe that -- and i would like to hear your opinion, dead it was not because of the donald trump or glenn beck or any of the crazies on the rate that he presented that birth certificate. but it was actually because of

the liberal left progressives who would come to me and say, why won't he just release his birth certificate? and it would take me 235 years to explain why he should not. >> we don't have 235 years here. >> exactly. my point is this. someone mentioned the minorities and young people are so profoundly disappointed in the last two years. but it is not just with obama. i believe it's also with aggressive because they were progressives may not. if he can't get progressives to stand up, then he's in trouble. thank you. [applause] >> anyone want to address that? >> just to be fair, there's crazy black people too. alan keyes is not accepting it and he's black or so let's not

be racist. there's crazy but people and crazy white people. >> i think his ideas for the birth certificate was neither the left nor the right, but the moderates. it was a way for him to use the presidential like they're quite utterly in the white house to raise the issue of the unserious debate in american politics. but the fact that we are even still talking about this two years later shows all of the other things that we're not talking about that actually matter. >> i don't know many progressives who have demanded president obama showed the certificate. i take the heart there was some anger about progressives, criticism of president obama. the president obama has lashed out at progressives who have criticized him. it seems to me there was a

misunderstanding between those outside but white to push beyond the limits of what some believe were constricted politics. there is a supporting nod as opposed to those on the right who want to delegitimize and destroy his presidency. a sense when a treat, for example, something critical of president obama's policy there's often a wave of anger from people. but look at the policies. eric spoke about the job crisis. you know, the rates of unemployment among african-americans, among latinos have soared anything can support for president of him there is the right kind of cultural identity support. but in terms of the route object to fax, it seems to me people should be agitating for job

policy in this country that will bring in all. it is a crisis and the new normal should not be a 9%. [applause] >> there is a woman way in the back on the left. >> hyatt, thank you for being here. but i am concerned about is even if you look around this room, you see people that are mostly over 30 i'd say. [laughter] and that's generous. i'm a high school teacher and i know my students, in the last election they didn't even know who was running and they didn't know during the primaries and they didn't care. i look at the media nic that is so limited. to get actual information out

there, all of us are the political advocate junkies, but the rest of the country is in. and what they hear is sensationalist than in the celebrities. they don't know anything about politics. how was it that we are going to get involved in politics and to have access to the issues? >> you know, two things happen at the media simultaneously right now. one is i don't have to state this in this town is the shrinkage of genuine of actual news coverage. there is maybe 40% as many journalists and they have to do twice as much. the columbia journalism review was a gerbil on a wheel because you've got a tweaked and a blog and video chats and walk peoples pets and stuff.

and there's no time to find stuff out and report on it. that is one crisis. the second crisis is what obama was talking about was this carnival barking staff, that is combined with the right wing bias. it's a tabloid mentality that is combined. they do want to hear this. the kids are leaving. the kids are not all right. on the right, which you sought in in the treatment of the birth certificate issuing weather or not he is a muslim and all possibly the antichrist. what has happened is because the rate is so financially successful. fox news is very profitable, it's bleeds into the mainstream media. is obama muslim? let's talk about it. what are the two sides? is obama trying to turn this

country into an islamic republic? i read a story that was inspired obama to show it certificate in good meriting america two days before. the fact is the media are not only losing people, but losing self-confidence and what they think their job is anymore. the glenn beck said bill o'reilly and rush limbaugh is on these people seem to know what they're doing. they have confidence, but they don't care what is true. they don't care at all. fox news shows when they want to attack. you don't need to applaud. when fox news reports on the wisconsin protest, they can't find any money, so they show a california protest.